560 N.W.2d 365 (Mich.App. 1997), 176456, Department of Transp. v. Goike
| Judge | Before SAWYER, P.J., and BANDSTRA and M.J. TALBOT, [*] JJ. |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael GOIKE, Marjorie Goike, Paul C. Stewart, and Carolee Stewart, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Citation | 560 N.W.2d 365,220 Mich.App. 614 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 176456. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
| Date | 18 March 1997 |
Page 365
Dec. 27, 1996
Submitted July 18, 1996, at Lansing.
Released for Publication March 18, 1997.
[220 Mich.App. 615] Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Marc G. Whitefield, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellee.
Eric G. Flinn, Sterling Heights, for defendants-appellants.
SAWYER, Presiding Judge.
Defendants appeal from a judgment of the circuit court in favor of plaintiff in this mineral rights dispute. We affirm.
Defendants are the former owners of certain real property located in Washington Township in Macomb County. Plaintiff acquired the property in order to improve Highway M-53 and was granted title in fee simple. However, it is undisputed that, pursuant to M.C.L. § 213.53; M.S.A. § 8.265(3), defendants retained the "fluid mineral and gas rights" in the property.
The issue on appeal is, once the fluid minerals and gas have been extracted from the property, does the resulting underground storage space that held those fluid minerals and gas belong to the surface owner or to the owner of the mineral rights. We agree with the [220 Mich.App. 616] trial court that the storage space, once it has been evacuated of the minerals and gas, belongs to the surface owner.
Section 3 of the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, M.C.L. § 213.53; M.S.A. § 8.265(3), provides that fluid mineral and gas rights are considered excluded when a government agency acquires an interest in
Page 366
land unless the instrument granting the land to the agency specifically includes those rights. It is undisputed that defendants retained the fluid mineral and gas rights when plaintiff acquired the property for the highway improvement project. At issue is whether the storage space is part of the mineral and gas rights. We conclude that it is not.
The statute does not define "fluid mineral and gas rights." Accordingly, we are to give the phrase its plain and ordinary meaning. Great Lakes Sales, Inc. v. State Tax. Comm., 194 Mich.App. 271, 486 N.W.2d 367 (1992). Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 995, defines "mineral right" as "[a]n interest in minerals in land, with or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assessing the Challenges of Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A California Guide to the Cost of Reducing Co2 Emissions
...2d 574, 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). [30] See, e.g., Tate v. United Fuel Gas Co., 71 S.E.2d 65 (1952); see also Dept. of Transp. v. Goike, 560 N.W.2d 365, 366 (1996) (holding that "a surface owner possesses the right to the storage space created after the evacuation of underground minerals or ......